There´s a misconception about the meaning of "turning point" because people confuse it by the english dictionary meaning. But turning point can be a low/high or
simple a breakout in the same direction of the trend. How you use that information is the key point as their value is very limited before the fact and you only have enough information, after the fact. After the fact everyone knows what happen in the past, just need to look at a price graphic on the asset :-)
RS
https://twitter.com/ricardosousaIASo let me see if I get this correctly about "turning point":
1. If it's a high, it's a correct hit.
2. If it's a low, it's also a correct hit.
3. If it's a breakout in the same direction that is going higher, it's also a correct hit.
4. If it's a breakout in the same direction that is going lower, it's also a correct hit.
5. And if there was a low, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every low.
6. And if there was a high, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every high.
7. And if there was a breakout in the direction that is going higher or lower, and Armstrong's model didn't call it, that doesn't mean that his model is wrong, because he doesn't call out every breakout.
8. YET, his ECM & Socrates observe GLOBAL capital movement, and nobody questions WHY he is NOT calling every low/high/panic cycle when he "can"?
So do you want to tell me,
how it is possible to even disapprove anything said by Armstrong? And what kind of trading information (or MIS-information) does such "turning point" add?
Isn't that like the global warming crowd, saying that
1. If the weather gets hotter, then it IS global warming.
2. If the weather gets colder, then it is just the weather.
3. If the weather gets dramatically colder, then it IS the global warming again because it brings crazy volatility and crazy weather.
And there is more, you can repeat similar above points from #1 to #7 for Armstrong's "directional change". His directional change is NOT the English version of directional change either. Because when you have the directional change indicated from arrays, the direction may not change yet, and the market can change directions SEVERAL time period AFTER that, and obviously he does NOT tell you how many, because it's essentially SO MANY until you forget about it proving him wrong.
The reason that his terms are NOT well-defined is that Armstrong/Socrates cannot give any precise definition, or else he probably will be shown 75% of the time WRONG.
Whenever the traditional meaning of Armstrong's definitions don't work, he will continue to add/elaborate on top of the terms, so that his term can encompass more (of current) scenarios. But certainly, more explanations will NOT alleviate your trading losses due to Armstrong's bad calls.
So let me try to be Armstrong for once: There is a turning point in July. It can be a high or low. But if it's not a high or low, it will likely breakout from the current trend. If not, within one to three time periods, the counter trend will form, which IS the indication for the turning point. Otherwise, for the small 25% of the time for turning point, high volatility will rein for the given period, or its low volatility will be followed by high volatility.
Viola, did I cover all possible scenario, and drag out the time frame long enough for you to forget about what happens if I am wrong?